Vote Recommendation | Economic Freedom | Property Rights | Personal Responsibility | Limited Government | Individual Liberty |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
Vote Yes; Amend | Positive | Positive | Neutral | Positive | Positive |
Relating
to the regulation by a municipality or county of the rental or leasing of
housing accommodations.
No fiscal implication to the State is anticipated.
SB 267 prohibits a
municipality or county from implementing policies that prohibit an owner or
lessee of a rental property from refusing to lease their property to a person
based on whether a person pays their rent with a federal housing choice voucher
or any other source of income.
The committee
substitute for SB 267 adds the provision that this law does not affect ordinances
or regulations adopted before January 1, 2015.
5/21/2015 update:
No changes have been made to this bill in House committee.
First chamber recommendation:
Currently, some
counties and municipalities have implemented ordinances that force property
owners to accept federal housing vouchers as payment. These misguided
ordinances and regulations are antithetical to property rights and individual
liberty because they make property owners lease to people who may not be credit
worthy. Forcing owners to accept tenants who pay their rent via federal housing
vouchers also forces more regulations upon the owners. Some of these increased
regulations require housing inspections to make sure the property is up to
federal housing standards.
If a property owner wants
to deny an applicant because he or she is paying their rent via a federal
housing choice voucher then it is the owner’s prerogative to do so, not the government's.
While we support most of SB 267, we do not support the added provision in the committee substitute version. The new provision in the bill says that the new law does not affect any ordinance or regulation adopted before January 1, 2015. We cannot fully support a bill that allows counties or municipalities to continue violating property rights and individual liberty. For this reason, we recommend yes on the bill but only if it is amended to remove Section 250.007 (b).
House chamber sponsor: Huberty